March 26, 2004

Senate Democrats Threaten to Block More Bush Nominees

ASHINGTON, March 26  Senate Democrats threatened today to block all of President Bush's judicial nominations unless the White House promised not to name any more judges while Congress was away.

"These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Mr. Bush's use of recess appointments "a finger in the eye of the Constitution."

Five weeks ago, President Bush used a Congressional recess to install William H. Pryor Jr., the Alabama attorney general, in a federal appeals court seat to get around a Democratic filibuster that had blocked his nomination.

Mr. Pryor will be able to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, until the end of the next session of Congress  meaning sometime in the fall of 2005.

The Pryor appointment was the second time this year that Mr. Bush used a president's power to make appointments when Congress is not in session to name judges directly to the bench and thus skirt the Senate confirmation process.

In January, Mr. Bush named Charles W. Pickering Sr., whose nomination had also been blocked by Senate Democrats, to a seat for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans. He, too, will have to step down before many months, unless there is a huge shift in the Senate and he is able to win confirmation.

"We will be clear," Senator Daschle said today. "We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges, but only if the White House gives the assurance that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances."

President Bush and his chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, were in the Southwest today and thus not ready to respond immediately to the Democrats' move.

Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, called the tactic "posturing" and told reporters no administration would rule out recess appointments.

Senate Democrats have blocked several of Mr. Bush's nominations on grounds that his choices are out of the judicial mainstream and have shown an insensitivity to civil rights. Mr. Bush has said the Democrats are playing politics and in so doing thwarting honest, highly qualified people.

""These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy."

This from the guy who invented and then perfected the poisoning of the process.

9
posted on 03/26/2004 4:49:20 PM PST
by Gringo1
(All contents of this post may be contrived,made-up,or just plain not true at all.)

The President should immediately give a national speech in which he absolutely calls the Democrats on this threat. The speach should address the fact that recess appointments are specifically provided for in the Constitution, have been made by every modern president, are necessary because of the dim's refusal to provide consent as required by the Constitution, etc. As others have suggested, he could also tie this into judicial activism, the pledge case, the gay marriage issue, etc.

The dim's can either back down (in which case they look like fools), or follow through with their no votes on nominees threat. In the latter case, the Republican's should exercise the "nuclear option."

Frist can simply direct the Clerk of the Senate to schedule nominees before the full Senate for an up or down vote. He can do this on the grounds that, to the extent the Senate rules require a supermajority to pass the nominee to a full vote, they are in violation of the direct and specific constitutional requirement that the Senate provide affirmative advice and consent with respect to the President's judicial nominations.

The dim's could challenge Frist's ruling. But because this would be a challenge to the chair's interpretation of the rules, the issue would be resolved by a simple majority vote--in which the Republicans, if they stick together, could prevail.

"We will be clear," Senator Daschle said today. "We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of federal judges, but only if the White House gives the assurance that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances."

Uh, excuse me, but how have the Demwits cooperated up to this point in the confirmation of Bush nominees?

You would never know without a scorecard, that the majority are Republicans. Sometimes I think Bush may be too nice a fellow to be president. He and most fellow Dems simply don't respond in kind, and it doesn't look like high moral ground, it looks like weakness. Filibusters, supermajorities, Memogate getting turned around on us, inquisitional commissions---the Dems are fighting dirtier than ever before, and mostly getting away with it.

When President Clinton made recess appointments, the Democrats backed them. Their demand is election year politics - and if they allowed an up or down vote on the judges before the Senate, it goes without saying it wouldn't be necessary for the President to resort to recess appointments in the first place. For folks concerned about upholding the Constitution, they're a veritable bunch of hypocrites.

35
posted on 03/26/2004 6:58:12 PM PST
by goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

That's exactly right... I was thinking along those same lines. It seems that Hamas is now really really going to murder some Israelis (as if they weren't already going to do exactly that). And now the Demos are threatening to really really obstruct the President's judicial nominations (as if they weren't already going to do exactly that).

Is the comparison between a murderous bunch of thugs and a group of law-hating Communist thugs too strong? I don't think so...

The dim's could challenge Frist's ruling. But because this would be a challenge to the chair's interpretation of the rules, the issue would be resolved by a simple majority vote--in which the Republicans, if they stick together, could prevail.

Yes, but there could come a time in a Democrat administration when a Republican supermajority is the only gate left on the highway to hell.

44
posted on 03/26/2004 8:25:30 PM PST
by FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is threatening to stall President Bushs judicial nominees if the president does not take action soon to appoint more than a dozen Democrats to government boards and commissions.

Senate Democrats threatened today to block all of President Bush's judicial nominations unless the White House promised not to name any more judges while Congress was away.

Hey, let's go for this deal. We can trust them. /sarcasm

"These actions not only poison the nomination process," the minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, said. "They strike at the principle of checks and balances that is one of pillars of American democracy."

Man, this is rich. How do Democrats face their families, their colleagues, and themselves in the mirror everyday? So, denying an up or down vote, and fillibustering judicial nominees is a checks and balances pillar?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.